What is the ace up the establishment's sleeve?

[Lyin' Steve]

Looks like Rubio's their boy.  Which he's been all along, of course.  But Trump's a mile-high wall in his path to the nomination.

Everyone's been saying for months "Trump can't win the nomination, the establishment will stop him."  Let's say it's January 5, 2016, and the numbers are Trump 30, Carson 15, Rubio 15.  What card does the establishment play to beat Trump?  And don't say money cause Trump will always win there.

[Likely Voter]

Firstly, there is no establishment candidate yet. The vast majority of the establishment (Govs, Reps and Senators) have yet to endorse and a lot of establishment money is still waiting things out to see how things shake up.

Also we have yet to see a big establishment backed anti-Trump TV campaign. There has been talk of one, but even Jeb's big Super PAC hasn't started going after Trump (they are focusing on pro-Bush ads). Back in 2012 the establishment piled on Gingrich before IA with big spends and took him down, when he popped back up again by winning SC they did it again in FL and took him down again.

As for how 'Trump will always win' the money game, as I noted in the fundraising thread, Trump has yet to really spend any money. He keeps saying he will but he hasn't yet. If the establishment (via Rove and/or other outside groups) spend $50M taking down Trump will he match them or outspend them? I'm not so sure.

On top of paid TV, you will see Fox News fill up with surrogates and elected Republicans attacking Trump every day, just like you did with Gingrich back in 2012.  In that case some of the conservative media (notably Drudge) also joined in with the anti-Gingrich wave.

[Lyin' Steve]

Firstly, there is no establishment candidate yet. The vast majority of the establishment (Govs, Reps and Senators) have yet to endorse and a lot of establishment money is still waiting things out to see how things shake up.

Also we have yet to see a big establishment backed anti-Trump TV campaign. There has been talk of one, but even Jeb's big Super PAC hasn't started going after Trump (they are focusing on pro-Bush ads). Back in 2012 the establishment piled on Gingrich before IA with big spends and took him down, when he popped back up again by winning SC they did it again in FL and took him down again.

As for how 'Trump will always win' the money game, as I noted in the fundraising thread, Trump has yet to really spend any money. He keeps saying he will but he hasn't yet. If the establishment (via Rove and/or other outside groups) spend $50M taking down Trump will he match them or outspend them? I'm not so sure.

On top of paid TV, you will see Fox News fill up with surrogates and elected Republicans attacking Trump every day, just like you did with Gingrich back in 2012.  In that case some of the conservative media (notably Drudge) also joined in with the anti-Gingrich wave.

Do you really think ads will work?  Bush's Super PAC already ran some anti-Trump ads.  I have three reasons why it own't work:

A)   The attacks have already been done.  Trump is a known quantity.  We've seen that people make excuses for him when they hear these attacks.

B)  Mysterious super PACs and the Republican Party launching attacks against Trump will just make his supporters defensive and angry against the establishment.  It will increase activity.

C)  If you've ever read Influence by Robert Cialdini, you may remember the doomsday cult story.  The basic idea is that when people put a lot of passionate effort into something and then are shown definitively that they're wrong, they'll pour themselves into it even more, because they need reinvestment and affirmation that they are in fact correct.  Social support is one major part of that re-affirmation, which Trump can provide in spades since he's the most popular candidate and has the most active supporters.

[Likely Voter]

there were a handful of Club for Growth anti-Trump ads, the total spend was $1m. Right to Rise latest buy is $24M and it is all pro-Bush biography ads. No negative ads. Trump has yet to deal with a real onslaught of negative advertising.

[Mr. Morden]

Do you really think ads will work?  Bush's Super PAC already ran some anti-Trump ads.  I have three reasons why it own't work:

A)   The attacks have already been done.  Trump is a known quantity.  We've seen that people make excuses for him when they hear these attacks.

B)  Mysterious super PACs and the Republican Party launching attacks against Trump will just make his supporters defensive and angry against the establishment.  It will increase activity.

C)  If you've ever read Influence by Robert Cialdini, you may remember the doomsday cult story.  The basic idea is that when people put a lot of passionate effort into something and then are shown definitively that they're wrong, they'll pour themselves into it even more, because they need reinvestment and affirmation that they are in fact correct.  Social support is one major part of that re-affirmation, which Trump can provide in spades since he's the most popular candidate and has the most active supporters.

A. People always say that.  “Negative ads against Candidate X aren’t going to work because Y.”  They usually do work though.  Even on candidates who are well known.

B. Hardly any ordinary voters pay any attention to who is responsible for a given ad.  The Super PAC could be called “Responsible Citizens for a Better Tomorrow” or something.  Who the heck is going to know (or care) what that group is?

C. “The most popular candidate and has the most active supporters.”  I realize that he’s leading in the polls, but how much of the support for any of the Republican candidates right now is “passionate”?  Voter loyalty to any particular candidate in a primary, at this very early stage, tends to be very weak.

We know this because basically every single modern day presidential primary campaign has seen the polls shift dramatically at one point or another.  “How can Howard Dean lose?  He’s winning in every state and he's got all that passionate support!”  Oops.

Or how about 2012?  Santorum was at about 4% in Iowa polls four years ago, and he ended up winning the state.  “But this time is different because X, Y, an Z.”  That’s what people always say.